scholarly journals Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h -index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia

2019 ◽  
Vol 286 (1916) ◽  
pp. 20192047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin A. Chapman ◽  
Júlio César Bicca-Marques ◽  
Sébastien Calvignac-Spencer ◽  
Pengfei Fan ◽  
Peter J. Fashing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Senior Faculty ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
H Index ◽  
Cultural Perspectives ◽  
Mentoring Practices ◽  
Publication Number ◽  
Journal Impact

Research is a highly competitive profession where evaluation plays a central role; journals are ranked and individuals are evaluated based on their publication number, the number of times they are cited and their h -index. Yet such evaluations are often done in inappropriate ways that are damaging to individual careers, particularly for young scholars, and to the profession. Furthermore, as with all indices, people can play games to better their scores. This has resulted in the incentive structure of science increasingly mimicking economic principles, but rather than a monetary gain, the incentive is a higher score. To ensure a diversity of cultural perspectives and individual experiences, we gathered a team of academics in the fields of ecology and evolution from around the world and at different career stages. We first examine how authorship, h -index of individuals and journal impact factors are being used and abused. Second, we speculate on the consequences of the continued use of these metrics with the hope of sparking discussions that will help our fields move in a positive direction. We would like to see changes in the incentive systems, rewarding quality research and guaranteeing transparency. Senior faculty should establish the ethical standards, mentoring practices and institutional evaluation criteria to create the needed changes.

The integrated interventional radiology match: a bibliometric analysis of matched first-year residents

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishnu Chandra ◽  
Neil Jain ◽  
Pratik Shukla ◽  
Ethan Wajswol ◽  
Sohail Contractor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Index Number ◽  
Research Information ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Journal Impact

Objectives: The integrated interventional radiology (IR) residency has only been established relatively recently as compared to other specialties. Although some preliminary information is available based on survey data five, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis documenting the importance of the quantity and quality of research in applying to an integrated-IR program currently exists. As the first bibliometric analysis of matched IR residents, the data obtained from this study fills a gap in the literature. Materials and Methods: A list of matched residents from the 2018 integrated-IR match were identified by contacting program directors. The Scopus database was used to search for resident research information, including total publications, first-author publications, radiology-related publications, and h-indices. Each matriculating program was categorized into one of five tiers based on the average faculty Hirsch index (h-index). Results: Sixty-three programs and 117 matched residents were identified and reviewed on the Scopus database. For the 2018 cycle, 274 total publications were produced by matched applicants, with a mean of 2.34 ± 0.41 publication per matched applicant. The average h-index for matched applicants was 0.96 ± 0.13. On univariate analysis, the number of radiology-related publications, highest journal impact factor, and h-index were all associated with an increased likelihood of matching into a higher tier program (P < 0.05). Other research variables displayed no statistical significance. All applicants with PhDs matched into tier one programs. Conclusions: Research serves as an important element in successfully matching into an integrated-IR residency. h-index, number of radiology-related manuscripts, and highest journal impact factors are all positively associated with matching into a higher tier program.

scholarly journals Bibliometric Study of Family Studies Journals Using Journal Impact Factors, CiteScore and H-index

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Zao Liu
Keyword(s):  
Family Studies ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Bibliometric Studies ◽  
Representative Family

Although there are bibliometric studies of journals in various fields, the field of family studies remains unexplored. Using the bibliometric metrics of the two-year and five-year Journal Impact Factors, the H-index, and the newly revised CiteScore, this paper examines the relationships among these metrics in a bibliometric study of forty-four representative family studies journals. The citation data were drawn from Journal Citation Reports, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The correlation analysis found strong positive relationships on the metrics. Despite the strong correlations, discrepancies in rank orders of the journals were found. A possible explanation of noticeable discrepancy in rankings was provided, and the implications of the study for stakeholders were discussed.

scholarly journals Academic sell-out: How an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia

2016 ◽  
pp. 161-172
Author(s):  
Thorsten Gruber
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Academic Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Rankings ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Journal Impact

Increasingly, academics have to demonstrate that their research has academic impact. Universities normally use journal rankings and journal impact factors to assess the research impact of individual academics. More recently, citation counts for individual articles and the h-index have also been used to measure the academic impact of academics. There are, however, several serious problems with relying on journal rankings, journal impact factors and citation counts. For example, articles without any impact may be published in highly ranked journals or journals with high impact factor, whereas articles with high impact could be published in lower ranked journals or journals with low impact factor. Citation counts can also be easily gamed and manipulated and the h-index disadvantages early career academics. This paper discusses these and several other problems and suggests alternatives such as post-publication peer review and open-access journals.

The Socio-economic Context of Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Luyt
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Value ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Economic Context ◽  
Perte D’Autonomie ◽  
Journal Impact

This paper argues that the rise of the JIF is a result of the perceived value of quantification measures in modern society and the restructuring of capitalism. Two key implications of this acceptance are explored: an increase in global academic dependency and a lessening of autonomy in the scientific field.Cet article défend la thèse que la montée du FIRS est le résultat de la valeur perçue des mesures de quantification de la société moderne et de la restructuration du capitalisme. Seront explorées deux conséquences importantes de cette acceptation : une augmentation de la dépendance globale du milieu universitaire et une perte d'autonomie du milieu de la science. 

Dynamics of Journal Impact Factors and Limits to Their Inflation

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Fischer ◽  
Hans-Jakob Steiger
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factors ◽  
Journal Impact

Units of measurement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
H Index ◽  
Units Of Measurement ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Eugene Garfield ◽  
Citation Metrics

This chapter discusses how performance is measured in science, such as through the role of citation metrics. Next, the chapter discusses the pros and cons of bibliometric indexes, and of ‘impact factor’, which was introduced by Eugene Garfield in 1955 but not widely used until twenty years later. The various ways that journals attempt to improve their impact factors, and how this will affect science, are also examined. Besides impact factor, the role played by indicators in evaluating scientists, such as the recently introduced h-index, is explored. Finally, fashions and trends in science are touched upon, illustrated with personal anecdotes from the author.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Consistent Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document